Arbolario - v - CA

Facts:
1.    Spouses Anselmo Baloyo and Macaria Lirazan had 5children. All of them are dead.
1.    The first child, Agueda Colinco was survived by her 2 children, namely, Antonio and Irene (respondent) Colinco. Antonio Colinco predeceased his three daughters (respondents).
2.    The second child, Catalina Baloyo, was married to Juan Arbolario. They had 1 child, Purificacion) who died a spinster.
3.    Third child, Eduardo Baloyo, sold his entire interest to his sister, Agueda Baloyo Colinco,
4.    The fourth child, Gaudencia Baloyo, conveyed her interest in the said lot in favor of her two nieces, Irene Colinco to one-half (1/2) and Purificacion Arbolario to the other half.
5.    The fifth child, Julian Baloyo was married and died, presumably after 1951 without any issue.
6.    In 1951, a notarized declaration of heirship was executed by and between them who extrajudicially declared themselves to be the only heirs of their parents.
2.    Juan Arbolario, consorted with another woman. From this cohabitation was born the 5 petitioners in 1951.
3.    Irene Colinco and her three daughters, believing themselves to be the only surviving heirs, executed a ‘Declaration of Heirship and Partition Agreement’
4.    Colincos filed  Civil Case against Spouses Salhay seeking to recover possession of a portion of lot
5.    Salhays alleged in their defense that they have been the lawful lessees of the late Purificacion Arbolario; that they purchased the disputed lot from the deceased lessor
6.    Before such civil case, Arbolarios the 5 children from another woman of the husband of the 2nd child, and spouses Salhay filed for Cancellation of Title with Damages against Colincos. They contend that the ‘Declaration of Heirship and Partition Agreement’ executed by the Colincos was defective and thus voidable as they were excluded therein. The Arbolarios claim that they succeeded intestate to the inheritance of their alleged half-sister,  Purificacion Arbolario; and, as forced heirs, they should be included in the distribution of the aforesaid lot.

Issue: WON Arbolario are entitled for the heirship and partition agreement
Held/Ratio: Petition DENIED. Decision affirmed.
            RTC did not give decision to whether or not they are legitimate or illegitimate heirs: “There is no presumption of legitimacy or illegitimacy in this jurisdiction (Article 261, New Civil Code); and whoever alleges the legitimacy or illegitimacy of a child born after the dissolution of a prior marriage or the separation of the spouses must introduce such evidence to prove his or her allegation                      Petitioners maintain that the CA declared them illegitimate on the unproven allegation that Catalina Baloyo had signed the Declaration of Heirship in 1951. They aver that this 1951 Declaration does not contain her signature, and that she died in 1903. Court finds:
1.    Their document appears to  be intercalated.
2.    Juan Arbolario’s marriage to Francisca Malvas validity has no basis. They allege that Catalina was already dead when they were born. It does not follow that just because his first wife has died, a man is already conclusively married to the woman who bore his children. A marriage certificate or other generally accepted proof is necessary to establish the marriage as an undisputable fact.
3.    Clear and substantial evidence is required to support the claim of petitioners that they were included in the 1951 Declaration of Heirship.

            Petitioners failed to prove the fact (or even the presumption) of marriage between their parents; hence, they cannot invoke a presumption of legitimacy in their favor. Without proof that Catalina died in 1903, her marriage to Juan is presumed to have continued. Even where there is actual severance of the filial companionship between spouses, their marriage subsists, and either spouse’s cohabitation with any third party cannot be presumed to be between “husband and wife.”

 Note: I made this case digest when I was still a law student. The ones posted on my blog were not due for submission as part of any academic requirement. I want to remind you that there is no substitute to reading the full text of the case! Use at your own risk.